Talk:Delphine LaLaurie/GA2

I like the English of the original LaLaurie article and do not find it archaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.200.122 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Christine (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Hi, I will be reviewing this article. My sympathies for the difficulties it's gone through in previous assessments.[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Very impressive article about a subject that's not that well known. Well sourced, with very few problems, which I'll discuss in the Comments section below.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Very minor issues, easily addressed. See below. For the most part, good prose.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The "See also" (currently, "a" is capitalized, and it shouldn't be) section is in the wrong place; it should be below the article content. Other than that, I like how the "References" section is laid out. I've never seen it this way before, but it makes sense. Again, there are minor issues I'll address below.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Excellent citing.

C. No original research:
Great job.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
I especially commend the editors' decision to not include the Cable and Smith sources.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I'm assuming good faith here, since so much care was taken in assuring that the images of LaLaurie herself were fair use. It really is unfortunate that there are no images of her that can be used here, but that's the way it is.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Let me get to my comments, and I'll come back to this.Christine (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead The lead doesn't currently summarize the article. It also isn't long enough.

Early life

Her father was Barthelmy Louis Macarty, the son of Barthelmy Macarty, the elder Barthelmy having brought the family to New Orleans from Ireland in about 1730. A little confusing. You could say "Her father was Barthelmy Louis Macarty, whose father Barthelmy Macarty brought the family to New Orleans from Ireland in about 1730."
In 1804, Delphine and Don Ramon undertook a trip to Spain. This is an example of the archaic language throughout this article. Say instead, "...Delphine and Don Ramon traveled to Spain." I think that it's adequate for GA, but I suggest if you want to bring it to FAC, you should have someone copyedit it. Remember, simple language is best in an encyclopedic article.
In any case, during the voyage, Delphine gave birth to a daughter, named Marie Borgia Delphine Lopez y Angulla de la Candelaria, nicknamed "Borquita". Delphine and her daughter thereafter returned to New Orleans. More archaic language. "In any case" as a phrase isn't encyclopedic, and neither is the word "thereafter". I recommend that you connect this paragraph with the previous one. Actually, one of the weaknesses of this entire section is that the paragraphs are too short. You can easily combine many of them.
This section confuses me. Its prose is definitely of a different style than the rest of the article. I like the prose in the rest of the article, but the prose here needs work.

I like how you use the less reliable sources, especially in the discussion about the LaLaurie myth. I have a suggestion, and it has to do with the "LaLaurie in popular fiction" section. Sections with just one item or paragraph in them, while there's no WP policy against it, is one of my pet peeves. I recommend that you rename the previous section "LaLaurie myth" and fold in the content about the Valentino book there.

The LaLaurie Mansion

It's against the MOS to include "the" in a section title. [1]
"Storey" is a British spelling; "story" is the American. I would think that since this is an article about an American, you should use the American spelling. I didn't notice any other British spellings. (I know, picky picky.) ;)
I wonder if you could combine the paragraph about Nicholas Cage in the previous paragraph. I like the last paragraph; it's a good conclusion to the article.

Sources: Like I said above, I like the structure of this section. I can understand why you structured it this way; it fits the scholarship of the topic. Refs 13, 15, 27, 31 are dead links. For the New Orleans Bee articles, you have "author unknown"; I'm not sure that's accurate. For citations that have no authors, most formats place the title first and don't mention that it has no author. I did like how the source refers to the newspaper; it's neat, simple, and is consistent with the format. Ref 24 has no page number(s).

Nice job. Address my concerns, and I'll happily pass it. Christine (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address these comments within 48 hours; the main writer hasn't edited in months. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's addressed to the best of my ability. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I further copyedited this article and made some other changes that you had missed. (That's my practice for articles that I review.) I'll go and pass it now. If ever you decide to take this article further, I recommend getting another copyedit before taking it to FAC. Christine (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]